Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011 (2026)

Signing of pleadings

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SIGNING OF PLEADINGS A. SIGNATURE. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the individual name of the attorney, whose Oklahoma Bar Association identification number shall be stated, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the address of the signer and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless the omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party. B. REPRESENTATIONS TO COURT. By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: 1. It is not being presented for any improper or frivolous purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 2. The claims, defenses and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

3. The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and 4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. C. SANCTIONS. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subsection B of this section has been violated, the court shall, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subsection B of this section or are responsible for the violation. 1. HOW INITIATED. a. By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subsection B of this section. It shall be served as provided in Section 2005 of this title, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion or such other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. b. On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subsection B of this section and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subsection B of this section with respect thereto. 2. NATURE OF SANCTIONS; LIMITATIONS. A sanction imposed for violation of this section shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs a, b and c of this paragraph, the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

a. Monetary sanctions shall not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section. b. Monetary sanctions shall not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. c. Monetary sanctions shall be awarded for any violations of paragraph 1 of subsection B of this section. The sanctions shall consist of an order directing payment of reasonable costs, including attorney fees, incurred by the movant with respect to the conduct for which the sanctions are imposed. In addition, the court may impose any other sanctions authorized by this paragraph. 3. ORDER. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. D. INAPPLICABILITY TO DISCOVERY. This section does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to the provisions of Sections 3226 through 3237 of this title. E. DEFINITION. As used in this section, "frivolous" means the action or pleading was knowingly asserted in bad faith or without any rational argument based in law or facts to support the position of the litigant or to change existing law. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 11, eff. Nov. 1, 1984. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 277, § 8, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 1987, c. 78, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1987; Laws 1994, c. 343, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Laws 2004, c. 368, § 10, eff. Nov. 1, 2004; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 4, § 2, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 4, § 3, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013; Laws 2022, c. 224, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2022. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 14 was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013) and repealed by Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 4, § 1, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Tal v. City of Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 97, 61 P.3d 234.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Tal v. City of Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 97, 61 P.3d 234. · cites it 6× “[1] (1) Did the trial judge err in denying a motion for sanctions filed pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1994, § 2011 (now 12 O.S. 2001 , § 2011) by seven private-sector defendants (the Hogan group) against plaintiffs (Moshe Tal and Taxpayers Against Ripoffs—T.”
Unit Petroleum Co. v. Nuex Corp., 807 P.2d 251 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 12× “Because we find that liability under Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 2011 (Supp.1988) does not extend to the law firm represented by an attorney signing a document, we affirm.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 5× “Relying upon its traditional equitable powers, and 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2011, the district judge taxed an in personam judgment as sanctions, (attorneys’ fees and costs), in favor of bank and against H & W and each attorney individually in the total amount of $7,698.”
Cooper v. Booher, 2004 OK 40, 93 P.3d 19. · cites it 8× “We vacate the portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that reversed the trial court's sanction order and we affirm the trial court's sanction order. Since no party sought certiorari with respect to any other portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, we…”
Broadwater v. Courtney, 809 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 3× “1986, § 103, 1 and 12 O.S.Supp.1986, § 2011. 2 The trial judge denied the application at hearing, stating specifically that “I don’t find that it [the action] was frivolous, malicious or anything of that nature.”
Warner v. Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 914 P.2d 1060 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “Following the confidential settlement, the non-settling defendants who had earlier been dismissed by the trial court applied for sanctions against Wilkinson and the law firm, alleging violations of 12 O.S.1991 § 2011. Following a two-day hearing, the trial court entered an order…”
Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, 85 P.3d 841. “3d 234, 240 (in that 12 O.S.2001, § 2011 is adopted from its federal counterpart, Rule 11, we may look to federal case law to aid in its interpretation and application).”
Frazier v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp. Auth., 775 P.2d 281 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.Supp.1987 § 2011, whose pertinent terms are: " * * * If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.”
Kirschstein v. Haynes, 788 P.2d 941 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 2× “[32] Attorneys *954 and parties many times must conduct themselves in such a manner to comply with the strictures of 12 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 2011. Section 2011, in part, provides that the signature of an attorney or party on a submission in a judicial proceeding constitutes a…”
First Nat. Bank & Trust v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 5× “Relying upon its traditional equitable powers, and 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2011, the district judge taxed an in personam judgment as sanctions, (attorneys' fees and costs), in favor of bank and against H & W and each attorney individually in the total amount of $7,698.”
Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hosp. Founders Ass'n, 934 P.2d 319 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 4× “10 Ill THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE § 2011 SANCTIONS Under the terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2011, sanctions may be visited upon a legal practitioner who signed the critical document on file.”
Martin v. Johnson, 1998 OK 127, 975 P.2d 889. · cites it 2× “¶ 6 The same day as this hearing, July 1, 1996, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions against Martin relying 12 O.S.1991 § 2011. They argued that the new claim for invasion of privacy was frivolous, and that Martin had attempted to assert a claim that had been previously…”
Show all 72 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(B): 2 cases
Stricklen v. O.i.p.m., L.L.C., 2017 OK CIV APP 3.
Kanaga v. Landon, No. 19-01038 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2020).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(B)(2): 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank v. Lam, 435 P.3d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lam, 435 P.3d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(B)(2)(3): 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank v. Lam, 435 P.3d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lam, 435 P.3d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(B)(3): 4 cases
Bank of Am., NA v. Kabba, 2012 OK 23, 276 P.3d 1006.
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Matthews, 2012 OK 14, 273 P.3d 43.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Eldridge, 2012 OK 24, 273 P.3d 62.
JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat. v. Eldridge, 2012 OK 24, 273 P.3d 62.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(C): 2 cases
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26, 977 P.2d 1089.
Reeves v. Parker, 2006 OK CIV APP 113, 143 P.3d 516.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(C)(1)(a): 1 case
Cooper v. Booher, 2004 OK 40, 93 P.3d 19. “We vacate the portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that reversed the trial court's sanction order and we affirm the trial court's sanction order. Since no party sought certiorari with respect to any other portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, we…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(C)(1)(b): 1 case
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dep't of Labor, 2021 OK CIV APP 4, 483 P.3d 608.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(C)(2): 1 case
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dep't of Labor, 2021 OK CIV APP 4, 483 P.3d 608.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(C)(3): 2 cases
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dep't of Labor, 2021 OK CIV APP 4, 483 P.3d 608.
Reeves v. Parker, 2006 OK CIV APP 113, 143 P.3d 516.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(b)(2): 1 case
Lawrence A.G. Johnson, No. 19-10956 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2020).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2011(c)(1)(a): 1 case
Cooper v. Booher, 2004 OK 40, 93 P.3d 19. “We vacate the portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that reversed the trial court's sanction order and we affirm the trial court's sanction order. Since no party sought certiorari with respect to any other portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, we…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.